Morning Bell: Top 5 Reasons to Repeal Obamacare

The House is scheduled to vote today on full repeal of Obamacare. Although many reports are circulating that Congress has already voted on this numerous times, this is only the second time the House will have voted to fully repeal the law.

Heritage has laid out the impacts of Obamacare on the American people—and according to a poll released this week, a majority of Americans agree that Obamacare should be repealed. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took to the pages of The Washington Post this week to re-argue the Administration’s positions, claiming basically the opposite of the havoc Obamacare is wreaking on the U.S. economy and health care system.

As Congress takes up the issue, we present the Top 5 Reasons to Repeal Obamacare:

Medicare and Medicaid is pushing the federal budget to the breaking point. Obamacare makes the problem much worse by adding to the entitlement crisis in the form of a massive Medicaid expansion and a new entitlement subsidy for households with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. These two spending entitlement programs will add at least 35 million Americans to the government rolls at an expense of more than $200 billion annually by the end of the decade.

In addition to being a massive federal power grab, Obamacare contains a massive tax increase on the American economy—at a time when job growth should be the nation’s number one priority. In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Obamacare tax hikes would raise about $800 billion in new revenue over a decade. Taxmageddon—the unprecedented, $494 billion tax hike scheduled to hit Americans on January 1, 2013 —includes just five of Obamacare’s 18 new taxes.

3. To preserve freedom, including religious freedom, for all Americans.

Obamacare tramples on individual freedom and religious liberty. One of the first examples is the especially controversial provision of the HHS preventive services mandate that takes effect in a few short weeks on August 1. After that, as employers renew their health plans in the coming year, they will have to comply with the HHS mandate’s coercive requirement to cover abortion-related drugs, contraception and sterilization—regardless of religious or moral objections. This is one of the first chilling examples in Obamacare that shows how Americans will lose their individual liberties.

2. To keep health care decisions where they belong—with patients and their doctors.

Obamacare is a massive intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship, micromanaging how health care should be delivered to patients. When the government is given this much authority and discretion, it does not result in higher-quality care for patients. Rather, it leads to price controls and one-size-fits-all regulations that misallocate resources and will lead to headaches for doctors and problems for patients trying to access health care.

1. To make way for real, patient-centered, market-based health care reform.

Health care reform that preserves American liberty is possible and is direly needed. The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream provides such a plan and would put us on a course toward a truly consumer-based health care system. A starting point should be setting commonsense insurance rules for those who buy their own insurance—individuals and small businesses outside the large group market. Congress should combine sensible individual health insurance market reforms with appropriate tax and Medicaid reforms for a fair and fiscally sound strategy to expand coverage to the currently uninsured.

Is Repeal Possible?

As research by Heritage’s Bob Moffit concludes, “Based on Washington’s record of health policymaking, ending or rolling back Obamacare is hardly implausible.” Moffit points to examples from history: the repeal of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 and President Bill Clinton’s failed attempts at reform in 1994. Moffit notes that the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 was originally enacted with bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, but repealed one year later. The reason? Plain and simple: it was the disapproval of the American people that drove the law’s removal.

The failure of Obamacare is not only a matter of the public’s continued opposition to it; the law is also a major policy failure. It is based on the false premise that more government, more regulations, and more mandates are the right solution to America’s health care problems. Obamacare falls short of genuine reform because its alleged benefits increase not only government spending, but also the cost of private health insurance—on the backs of taxpayers.

To achieve a health care system where patients come first, Congress must not embrace the flawed and failed policies in Obamacare. Instead, Congress must use this opportunity to offer an alternative vision for the future of health care—a future where individuals get better care at lower cost without government controlling the dollars and decisions.

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the “wealthy” carry 70 percent of America’s federal tax burden.

A quick reading of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s op-ed in The Washington Post reveals that she must think “you’re an idiot,” says one National Review Online columnist.

Mexican authorities have discovered a tunnel between Mexico and Arizona “over four feet (1.2m) tall [that] included electrical lights, ventilation and small carts used to push narcotics over the border,” reports The Telegraph.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is making an unconstitutional move to use the Senate as a political messaging tool, as Heritage’s Brian Darling explains.

Join The Discussion

1. Who would pay for Pelosi's Botox?
2. Who would pay for Boehner's golf lessons?
3. Who would pay for Michelle 'the bells' Weight Watchers program?
4. Who would pay to fund the New Black Panthers?
5. Who would pay for Berry's cigarettes?

There are many more but it took the life-long politicians a long time to get their hands on healthcare…they will not let go easily…

There is one more glaring reason. The fools who would vote, for this insanity, deserve the consequences, of their actions. Are there enough strong willed politicians, in congress, with the guts, to risk being voted, out, of office, in the next election? We have been set up, for a fall! There is no doubt, in my mind, that there are a majority, of voters, in this country, who do not care how this will be funded. They will never need, to pay, for the cost themselves, and they will vote, to put the knife, in our backs!

I couldn't agree with you any more. The intent has been to reject the rights of the People over the Central Gov't that is suppose to be for Americans, but instead, this Adm. has suied more States, treatened more companies, given more to the Socialist Unions and fellow groups instead of following Contract Law presedence, disregard the people, groups, pension funds, etc. that were the Bond Holders of GM, but, gave the UAW $23Billion costing the taxpayer more than if they had just filed for Bankruptcy. Spend a year ramming the healthcare bill down our throats knowing the People are against Gov't interference in their everyday lives from craddle to grave. This Adm. doesn't pursue the unlawful actions of Unions, Black Panthers, ACORN, and ignoring State's Rights. This may be one of the most Big Gov't Pres. in history. It is almost as if he is trying to bring down America and American Values.

Even though it's mainly a symbolic gesture, it does signal the first of many skirmiches to come after the Supremes, or Roberts, said the law was Constitutional. Unless there is a majority of Republicans elected in November, including Romney, the law will stand as is. So, the real battle is November 6th and that will determine not only the outcome of Obamacare but the direction of the country as well.

I don't see how these idiots, who sit has Supreme Justices, can claim that Obamacare is constitutional. I don't see it as constitutional when such a large number of people will not be taxed in the same manner. If your employer provides a group insurance plan, you the employee must pay tax as though what the employer pays is income. This does not hold true for members of unions they received a waiver ( because of their support). If you take into consideration that federal and local municipal workers are all unionized, plus teachers and hospital workers. Printers Union, Teamsters, UAW, Carpenters Union, Electrician Union, etc. etc. Plus all politicians who get their healthcare for free don't have to worry about the effect of Obamacare, they continue with the best healthcare our taxes can buy for them.

Congressmen/women do pay for a portion of their Medical Ins. and Retirement, they also have been paying into Social Security since around 1984. Granted they probably don't pay as much (%) as private sector workers and do have Cadillac coverage, but at least it's not free.

This "Unaffordable" Healthcare Bill is so wrong for the America I have always known. Add the following to your wonderful list……Great Britain, Canada, Cuba, heck, all of Europe. This socialized healthcare will be the demise of the baby boomer generation. I am very resentful that the democrats will be stealing my golden years for lack of the quality healthcare…..instead I'll get some unqualified bureaucrat like Kathleen Sebelius, making medical decisions as to what I can and cannot have….not my doctor and not me. VOTE OBAMA AND ALL DEMOCRATS OUT OF OFFICE IN NOV!!!

I could sympathize with you if the US had the best healthcare system in the world, but we don't. In fact, every country you listed (except Cuba) has a better healthcare system than we do.http://www.who.int/research/en/

If that be the case Pragmatic I dare you to go to Cuba next time you are very ill and need healthcare. Even Castro didn't use the Cuban doctors when he was so ill. Better yet, perhaps you might like to relocate to Cuba…..enjoy!

Well then, relocate to Europe and let us know how much better the healthcare system is compared to the USA. Enjoy the "death panels"……but wait!…..we're going to have our own death panels right here in the USA….silly me.

I disagree. If Canadian healthcare was so much better than what we receive in the US, then, why would so many Canadians come to the US for care?

If you think waiting 6 months for an X-Ray is better, then, maybe you should experience it for yourself. If you aren't aware, the United States of America has a totally different view on liberty and The People over The Central Gov't, which is why we broke away from G.B. and their Top Down Gov't.

"…democrats will be stealing my golden years…" It will actually be much worse than that, Mary. As you implied, there will soon be "death panels", which they will call something else, but which will ration our health care and which will decide who does or doesn't receive lifesaving treatment when needed.

I hope that a watchdog group is monitoring the ads Obama is buying on TV promoting "free" health care. Not in his name of course but I am convinced the ads, paid for by us folks who do not want Obamacare, will increase as the election draws near.

I think, seriously, to be a member of Obama's cabinet, one must be a pathological liar.

You're so right, Curt. The gummint has NO interest in the physical welfare of the population. Its only interest is in the 'control' element. This has been true ever since 'big gummint' started being interested in 'big healthcare'. Remember Hitlery's nauseous effort to try to take over one sixth of America's economy?

Amy, good article. I would encourage someone at Heritage to create some diagrams that show and simplify how the flow of money and taxes flow and why making government is bad. and why the top down flow for in the private sector is only real way for prosperity for lower-income folks in the long run. contrast the 2 very different ideologies/approaches to govt and the economy
– what if government can keep paying for everybody who 100% depend on govt for sustenance?
– what if private sector was released from uncertainty to invest again and grow?

it has to be simpler to get to 18-30 yr old group… they are buying into "taking care of everybody is good" mantra. they are logical and if story hangs together they will embrace.

Here's a crude way to look at the efficacy top down flow… The poor maximize the opulence of the rich, and the rich minimize the squalor of the poor. A thriving middle class is the result of more opulence above and less squalor below. Government policies that punish the rich for working and reward the poor for not working have one, and only one, impact on today's middle class… trickle up poverty.

Dean, it's great to have someone with you experience and insight posting on here. I have one question (not trying to be biased with this either), but I don't have the industry experience that you do so your insight will be greatly appreciated.

How much financial burden would be released from your firm if it didn't have to provide healthcare (for example, individuals buy coverage or single-payer)?

I'm curious because it seems like this would create a huge savings on administration costs and would give people more freedom to changes jobs or take the risk and start their own company. Any insight is appreciated

In Texas only 31% of doctors accept Maedicaid. The govt. has made additional cuts to Medicaid ahead of the health care law. They are asking Texas to expand Medicaid to include the uninsured. The lifeboat is not only already full but is taking on water. A better solution must be found.

I agree with the premise that Obamacare must go but I do not agree with the method that it must be repealed. The conservative mantra appears to be repeal, repeal, repeal and yet Republican. Delegate from VA, Bob Marshall offers a different solution and one that stands a greater chance of success:

*ACTION ITEM*: Contact Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and your own Congressman and urge them to file a suit challenging the Obamacare’s violation of the Origination Clause requirement pointed out by Justice Kennedy in his dissent. A House of Representatives member who voted “no” or who opposes Obamacare has legal standing to file a lawsuit.

Passing an Obamacare repeal bill in the House has some value but it can and will be ignored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. However, the President and Sen. Reid cannot ignore a court challenge to the “Origination clause.” (See explanation below).

Because the US Supreme Court claims the Individual Mandate portion of Obamacare is a tax and not a penalty, House of Representatives’ Speaker John Boehner and other House members who voted “no” can go to federal court to block enforcement of the new found tax.

Why? Because the US Constitution requires that, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” (Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1)

*BACKGROUND:* The legislative history of Obamacare, shows that what became the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originated as a Senate Amendment to HR 3590 a measure introduced by Congressman Rangel (D-NY). This bill (HR 3590) which passed the House or Representatives in October 2010 by 416-0 actually REDUCED revenues to the federal treasury. It granted tax credits to military, foreign service and US intelligence agency homebuyers who sold their homes because of work related job transfers.

The “Origination Clause” which requires that taxes originate in the House, is not a mere technicality like correcting a misspelled word. It was placed in the Constitution as a substantive condition to ensure the consent of the governed for public policies and to avoid circumstances such as those which led to the “passage” of Obamacare.

Virginia’s James Madison noted in the Federalist Papers, (No. 58) that, “The House of Representatives … alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse … This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

There was serious debate in the Constitutional Convention over whether the Senate should even be allowed to amend revenue bills, much less originate them. The “compromise” was to allow the Senate to amend revenue, but not originate revenue bills. Virginia’s George Mason said that the House “would be the immediate representatives of the people, the 2nd would not. Should the latter have power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the Source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.”

*PRIOR COURT ACTION:* The Supreme Court has stated, "revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue."
[/Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, / (1897)] The so-called Patient Protection “law” will increase federal taxes by almost $500 billion for the next ten years (current estimates) and many of
these taxes will affect taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year.

However, Obamacare started in the Senate, a mistake Justice Kennedy noted in his dissent: “the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people … .” Kennedy cited a 1990 Supreme Court decision involving the origination Clause, /United States /v. /Munoz-Flores/, 495 U. S. 385.

In that case, Justice Marshall noted “To survive this Court's scrutiny, the ‘law’ must comply with all relevant constitutional limits. A law passed in violation of the Origination Clause would thus be no more immune from judicial scrutiny because it was passed by both Houses and signed by the President than would be a law passed in violation of the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a lower federal court and let stand a 1915 decision invalidating the 1914 congressionally passed Cotton Futures Act because the tax did not originate in the House of Representatives (Hubbard v. Lowe).

My only question then, would be, why wouldn't the court go to the next step and declare the law unconstitutional on the basis of the origination clause? The only explanation I can come up with is the whole "laywer-ese" of "that was not the argument presented". There is nothing more disgusting to me than someone who bypasses a legitimate issue like this because it was not challenged in the way they wanted it approached. They should not have stopped at "it is a tax", .they should have completed it with. . "and since it is a tax, and the Senate can't enact a tax, then the entire law is unconstitutional". ..I think that they clearly didn't go this route because of pressure from Obama. . .which is absolutely absurd. Their JOB (SCOTUS) is to stand up to Obama!!

Once again… nice job Amy. I am Exhibit "A" of what's wrong with Medicare and potentially Obamacare. With Medicare and good supplemental policies I had two knees replaced last year with my total out-of-pocket some drug copays. I have no idea of what any of the imaging, surgical, hospital and rehab costs were. I'm thankful, while at the same time aware that the later limping Boomers may not be so fortunate. As I see it, we have two choices going forward… either we introduce market forces into the national health solution or accept the kind of rationing that will resemble a life or death lottery. We have the means at hand to avoid buying a pig in a poke. How about a Social Media campaign that demands that each party's nominee presents and defends an alternative national healthcare vision at an October Presidential Debate?

Wait, you example of why Medicare is bad is that you got the treatment you needed and didn't have to pay very much? This sounds like the perfect argument for nationalizing healthcare not removing government. Other countries have lower per capital spending on healthcare than we do with single payer systems, and everyone gets the care you just described.

Sorry for the confusion… my point is that I benefitted from a nationalized healthcare system that is running up trillions in unfunded liabilities, that without major changes, won't be viable for those just a few years younger, much less my kids and grandkids. That's hardly an argument for Medicare for Everyone. I have my own opinions re other countries' single payer systems, and what those systems will look like as many of those countries precede us into insolvency.

Thanks for the clarification and I can definitely appreciate the call for reform. On the other hand, a lot of countries with single payer systems have much better long term outlays than we do (see German, Sweden, Norway). But I couldn't agree with you more that Medicare is unsustainable as currently structured.

I see nothing but mis-informed citizens making posts on this board. It's unbelieveable and incrediable how the GOP have brain washed your minds. People!!!!! Do your research before you make ignorant posts such as these. I guess if you tell a lie long enough, it's becomes the truth. Just pathetic!!!

Spent 20 years in military as an MA, EMT and NCOIC of several clinics in european countries. Their socialized medicine took care of everyone but the first thing they would do when they got rich enough was to pay for private doctors. Why? because the socialized medicine health care sucked in huge amount of forms, the boards and committees they had to go through to get a procedure done, the rationing for older people, the waiting, then repeat every thing again at the next stage, and finally being cared for by health care workers who usualully treated them like stupid little children. Yes our health care has problems and needs some changes but a 2700 page untested socialized medicine law that allowed no public input during its formation is Not the answer..

Misinformed? You are dreaming. Check these numbers. And don't give me "tax credits" my taxable income is below owing by thousands already. This is plain non refundable forced expense. I get nothing back.
In 2010 I spent $478.39 on health care $413.39 of that on Dental $65 on physical.
In 2011 I spent around $78 on health care $65 on physical $13 on first aide.
By the end of 2012 I expect to have spent around $250 around $185 on dental $65 on physical.
My projected spending for 2013 for health care assuming one "Incident" and some dental, $750.– $65 on physical Etc… My average for these four years is about $389 Now lets project 2014 *Note most of my medical IS Dental. My forced insurance purchase $3900 for the plan with Dental (ten times what I spend now) $2220 for the plan without Dental. This is assuming my wife and kids can keep their current insurance.
This bill propels me and hundreds of thousands or even millions of others into poverty. Go "help" somebody who wants your interference.

Misinformed? You are dreaming. Check these numbers. And don't give me "tax credits" my taxable income is below owing by thousands already. This is plain non refundable forced expense. I get nothing back.
In 2010 I spent $478.39 on health care $413.39 of that on Dental $65 on physical.
In 2011 I spent around $78 on health care $65 on physical $13 on first aide.
By the end of 2012 I expect to have spent around $250 around $185 on dental $65 on physical.
My projected spending for 2013 for health care assuming one "Incident" and some dental, $750.– $65 on physical Etc… My average for these four years is about $389 Now lets project 2014 *Note most of my medical IS Dental. my forced insurance purchase $3900 for the plan with Dental (ten times what I spend now) $2220 for the plan without Dental. This is assuming my wife and kids can keep their current insurance.

DREAM-ON! America's voting population is over 70% "gatherer's," who are those that enjoy receiving things from others. I'm talking about women & blacks, who voted for this promised "fundamental transformation of government" into marxism(anti-christ) and our single largest voting-block. women alone made this promised marxist takeover possible! Welcome to Adams world & also the soon coming to the two-witnesses of Revelation, chapter 11 to witness against u.s. Did I mention that they are equal opportunity witnesses & leave only 72,000 anglo-saxon men & 72,000 anglo-saxon women alive at the completion of their witnessing against u.s.? Did I mention that the tribe of Dan(Irish) will be replaced by the tribe of Joseph for being protected? Remember Joseph had two-sons: Ephraim(England) & America(Manasseh) that got the promise that Reuben lost. Just saying…

Why is it that the Democrats seem to be good at putting out misinformation to the general public and swaying public opinion in their favor but the Conservatives don't seem to make much of an effort to get the truth out.? Their arguments, when they attempt to make them, are weak and watered down. I think the author of this article could have made much better arguments against Obamacare.

Part of the problem in getting out our message is "The Media". 99% of what is broadcast on the news is Pro-Obama and Con-Republicans. Just listen when the Dems blame the Reps for anything and everything (I should say the Leadership), so, Reps can't get their message out about the truth. With the Media parrotting the Dem message over and over, some people who are not paying attention will only hear that message and will not hear the opposing message. Now, NBC is caught, finally, of editing video and voice to meet the Dem's message against the Reps without appology. Andrea Mitchell is not a journalist with any integrity. I won't listen or watch NBC National News, because it isn't news, but, propaganda.

I am a conservative Christian and even I can recognize the rhetoric in this opinion piece. Bottom line, which Romney supported as govenor, provide health care for all. I'm sure the author Amy Payne has a comfortable existence including health care. Why is she so special? You give Christians a bad reputation. Jesus would care for all even if he had to pay more in tax for it.

There is a clear difference bettween a State (like Romney did) deciding for itself to create healthcare for it's citizens.. Where it crosses the line is when it is done at the federal level Edith. This is because of the soverignty of each individual state may decide they don't want it.. when you don't leave any state an option to not be in it (as obamacare did) you rob american's of choices.

Jesus may care for "ALL" in his scriptures, but to take away people's natural rights (given by God) goes against his teachings of Free Will. Government Force is similar to Pontius Pilot who crucified Jesus because he didn't understand God as our "Spiritual World" Lord and not a "Natural World" Lord. To say Jesus would pay a "Tax" is also laughable, "render to ceasar what is Ceasar", "Render to God what is Gods"

Romney supports health care availability for all NOT leach the people. The Affordable Care act is designed to take money from me and give it to insurance companies and government NOT in return for health care BUT in return for more regulations. My health is my decision (and my doctor on the rare occasion I don't know how to fix me). Not to be decided by some committee in Washington.

One question Chaz, have you read the 2700 pages? I have twice and have 50+ questions that no one can answer about how it will be implemented and paid for. Its a legal morass worse even than the tax codes.

Heritage had missed the most important reason to totally repeal the law. As obama has stated many times he favors total Gov't run single payer. Furthermore he said that it would take at least 10 years. This law is but the first step and it designed to siphon as many as possible on to gov't run "exchanges". As someone who has spent a 40 year career in the medical device industry I am certian that single payer will almost certainly stop almost all medical research. Medical companies must turn a profit. If they do not they will go out of business. So what will they do to overcome reduction in revenues which be a result of single payer. They can't stop marketing ( the life blood of any sucessful business) production costs are for the most part fixed, shipping is also fixed . The only wat to signifigantly reduce costs is to reduce reaserch inti new products. In todays costs it takes over 1 billion dollars to bring a new product to market. Here are a few things to think about. The following have all been developed in the US- Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators- Heart valves – Arterial grafts- Hip and Knee implants-artifical vascular grafts-Heart lung machines- 24 hr Holters- MRI machines- Cardiac monitoring- these are just a very small number of devices that have been researched and developed here. Not in any of the countries that have universal medical coverage. There have in fact been very few innovations in medical products in those nations. WHY? Because there is no profit incentives in them. Aids research did not happen in Africa or Europe or China or anywhere but in the US. If all The US becomes a country with Universal medical coverage almost all medical progress will suffer a tragic slowdown. I for one do not want to live in such a world.

The world's biggest pharmaceutical companies are in Switzerland (universal healthcare), Britain (universal healthcare), and the US. Also, these companies sell drugs on a global scale, so the fact that their home country has universal healthcare is misleading. What they're really concerned about is legal protection and corporate treatment (low taxes, low regulations, etc).

Also, Germany and Japan have great medical device manufactures and most of the innovation comes out of research universities and hospitals

Reason number 2: To keep health care decisions where they belong—with patients and their doctors; strange talking point from the party that wants to overturn Roe v Wade, and make it illegal for physicians to ask patients about guns in the house.

Dean, I don't see the rational or difference. So, killing millions of babies is OK? And, what business is it of my Dr. to determine whether I have a gun or not. So, you think this is OK for the 2700 page social takeover of my decisions with my Dr. as to the proper treatment or care. Now, healthcare will go through the IRS, like they are informed as to my health needs. This is just another way of Big Brother taking over our lives and liberties.

I believe we need to stop the push to socialism taking place. That being said, I can't help but wonder why the House is even bothering with this vote. Obamacare has a lot of regulations burried in it that neither side would have voted for had they got to read it before it was voted on. And if it was so good, they wouldn't have issued 1231 waivers or over 4 million people It is so good all the politicians and staff etc are exempt from it. Rather than the House spinning iths wheels, lets see votes to replace it with something the people can live with. Remember, people from around the world come here for our world class medical care. Let's not let politicians destroy it. Everybody needs basic care, if they want the extras – birth control etc get their wallets out.

"Remember, people from around the world come here for our world class medical care"

I can't stand this line. I agree that we are very fortunate to have this, but a large number of our own citizens can't access this without insurance and, even for those with insurance, the "right" insurance plans. I would be much happier if we could guarantee americans at least basic healthcare instead of providing "world class medical care" to the world's richest.

Should we provide all with a basic house and clothing and food too? Where does it end? If that is all guaranteed do you know how many millions more will just take advantage and live off of the rest of us? People who don't work and save should not get the same benefits as those who do. My parents were poor and neither expected nor wanted a handout. We already have medicaid for the poor if they choose to get it. Everyone else should pay for themselves, come up with common sense solutions to the cost of medical care, and use the medical system less.

I am 49 years old, I am healthy. My "basic" health care averages $389.00 per year out of pocket expense including dental. My insurance costs would run $2200.00 without dental $3900.00 with dental plus co-pay out of pocket expense. Guarantee that my basic cost won't go up by ten times like these insurance rates say they will.

I was hoping you weren't a tool but you prove yourself in your words. No assuming! America already provided care regardless of insurance coverage and without the hindrance of government. why would you be happier putting personal health care control in corruptible hands? Do you think obamacare is fair and reasonable for all Americans? In what way? Where is the line on government authority? Are you affiliated or employed by tax funded government entity? You're pushing outside control on people that feel much better, safer, secure controlling their own makes you a conflict of interest.

Those that you refer to, Prag, are able to go to any hospital and not be denied, so, those poor folks Do have access to healthcare. Those of us with Insurance pay for those that don't already. Your arguement is false.

The consensus of opinion of my surgeon friends is that they are going to work 24 / 7 until 2014, then retire or do something else. None feel the need to work for the government and wonder who in their right mind will want to go to medical school to simply work for the government. Looks like the idealism of youth may regret their support of utopia when they reach my age.

Does anybody here actually realize how this law works or the reasons it was put into place? Currently, millions of Americans voluntarily choose not to get health insurance. That's fine, except when they visit the emergency room when they need any sort of medical assistance. Inevitably, those individuals will be unable to pay the tens of thousands of dollars they racked up. When the collection efforts fail, the hospital will turn around and bill the federal government (the taxpayers) for most of that unpaid money. To recoup the rest, the hospital will raise their rates.

All Obamacare does is try to make sure that more people are on the system, so that a) rates are lower b) the government isn't handing out as much money to hospitals when somebody doesn't pay c) encouraging individuals to get their own insurance d) ensure that those who previously couldn't obtain insurance (and still posed a greater risk to taxpayers) are now able to do so.

It's really not that hard of a concept. And it's a pretty conservative one, too. There was a reason this law was proposed by the Heritage Foundation as the "Republican" alternative to Hillary Clinton's plan in the early 1990s. Conservatives used to be about individuals taking responsibility for themselves and paying their own way. What happened to that?

welleducated, more fitting is well indoctrinated. No offense. Conservatives don't believe in government force. Conservatives don't believe in more people on a government controlled system. That's government dependency and you know conservatives don't believe in that. Obamacare has already cost extensive amounts unfairly put on people who are self reliant and at any income level.

Independence is living free from government control not depending on it.

People should get care whether they're insured or not and when they need that care the bill can be sent to them and they can personally figure out how they are going to pay for it. Negotiate with the hospital/doctor/clinic etc. without assuming it on the uninvolved.

People know obamacare is an unjust, unconstitutional act perpetrated by distorting and manipulating claims from activists and government in control and also know that it isn't for just the uninsured. It's a trap to insure all America that doesn't get a waiver, the government force and control way.

The problem is NOT Obamacare, it is the illegal alien Obama. Why do people spend hours talking about eliminating "Obamacare?" We The People should eliminate the illegal alien, by prosecuting him in impeachment, then shipping (him) to Guantanimo Bay, Cuba, to be incarcerated there, by our USMC, until he does one of two things–either dies in prison, or rats-off Soros and all the illegal appointments he made while in Office! Yes, his appointments: Schultz; Napalitano; Jarrett; Sebelious; Carney and the list goes on and on, and on, ad infinitum with communists, homosexuals and so forth.

If we follow your link it becomes apparent that the bulk of those taxes are not coming out my pocket nor most of your readers.

The 1st tax mentioned makes individuals making over $200,000 a year(quarter million a year if married) pay 0.9% more taxes. Ouch! Wish I had that problem.

The 2nd tax mentioned is what really has the rich people mad. Investment income such as capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties are not considered income. This is how Warren Buffet averages paying about 15% in taxes while his secretary pays about 28% while taking home considerably more money. This whopping 3.9% tax does not apply to your 401K or IRAs. IF you sell a home that was not your residence, i.e. an investment property, or if you sold the home for more than $2500,000($500,000 if married)over what you paid for it then you would indeed pay an extra 3.8% on the amount of your profit that exceeded a quarter(half million) dollars. Truly a problem I wish I had.

3. To preserve freedom, including religious freedom, for all Americans.

"The government should not tell me I can't tell my employees that they should follow the dictates of my religion whether they follow it or not". This argument always amuses me in it's sheer hypocrisy.

Would I argue that Is PPACA perfect, no. But there is not a single plan out there that is perfect. There are some truly good things in PPACA sadly the most people waste time talking about things that don't affect most people(taxes that only hit you if your income is $200,000+) or so emotionally charged that logic is not involved which leaves only 2 reasons to talk about it the primary one is to get people angry about something that is less important than the real issues.

First, I do NOT support Obamacare but, if you believe that forced retirement accounts (social security) are good and that forced retiree medical accounts (medicare) are good then you shouldn't be complaining about Obamacare. Social security should be voluntary and then receipients should only receive what they paid in plus a small percentate (like a savings account).

Who is going to answer the question which will still remain – rising medical costs – something has to be done-
preventative health needs to have some positive motivation to the pocket book, as in the long run will keep away the expensive care. Surely I hope someone somewhere can figure this out. Physicians are going to drop like flies due to overextending themselves with the already mountains of paperwork, let alone keep up with technology, and patient load. Then having non-medical people making them bean counters!! Most physicians care about their patients and want to do what is best.

What is the repupublican plan? Maybe they should come up with a plan of their own. But then what would they complain about? Romney hasn't bothered offering a plan. Oh wait, this was his plan to begin with!
Why should insurance companies be allowed to filter customers based on pre-existing conditions?
Why should they be allowed to cap what they spend on us if we get ill? There's your death panel.
Why should my insurance and health care cost more because some people don,t have insurance?
Why didn't republicans do anything about this when they controlled both houses of congress and the White House from 2000-2006? It's not because they were busy cutting spending or balancing the budget. All I can say is "hypocrites'.

It was fairly obvious that BHO, with Dems control of both houses, couldn't get it passed without a midnight vote on Christmas Eve, and this was only because of payoffs to certain Dems that believed the One Size Fits All was wrong and should be left to the States.

Now, we have a Gov't Control of all our lives from craddle to grave, instead of individual liberties to self determination. And, to turn over all this power to unelected appointees unknown with thousands of new regulations and restrictions. If you think private healthcare has restrictions, wait til you see what comes from these new 154 Agencies created under this law. Larger Central Gov't is what we broke away from and should always be the tenant of The People.

Current Government programs like Medicare have unintended consequences and need reform. For example I know a young lady that had her new baby's delivery paid for by Medicaid even though the baby's father is a $70,000 a year union truck driver with great union medical benefits. They are not married. In this case Government Medicaid is an incentive for the mother and father NOT to get married in order to get free Government medical care even though the father of the child can clearly afford to pay for the child. What will be the unintended consequences of such a large Government program like Obamacare?

#1 REASON and the only reason for repeling it…..It is unconstitutional, no matter what the courts say!!!!! The government was set up to PROTECT our individual RIGHTS not inflict intrusive mandates on the people and then justify it by calling it a tax. This country is a Republic governed by its people, NOT a dictatorial government.

Fairytales work good on this page. These are all false notions promoted by Right-wingers. The truth must hurt too much to admit that! 2 views to one problems which has a solution that was generated by the Republicans especially the mandate. It was implemented by the current Republican Presidential Candidate & modeled the national plan passed by a Democrat. I guess fantasies and lies work if you say it often enough & to those who can't stand to do critical thinking. Keep spreading these lies it might comeback to bite ya! The truth is out there!!!

This article completely misses the point, in my opinion. I don't care if Obamacare is made of gold, it should still be repealed. Why? Because it was pressed upon the people by an abusive president and an abusive, supporting legislature in full knowledge of the overwhelming opposition of the people. That legislature and that president should suffer the full rebuke and humiliation of seeing it TOTALLY repealed. (They should suffer more than that, even, but I'm trying to stay within the realm of possibility.)

It is not as if this is the last piece of legislation that can ever be passed. No one denies the fact that our healthcare system is in need of some reforms, but it doesn't have to come in the form of a 2700 page monstrosity which, even lawyers and judges say, is incomprehensible. If we had had decent representation in the House and the Senate, this bill would have been dead on arrival simply due to its complexity. Any law that extensive is proof on its face that undisclosed ulterior motives are propelling it. It is this deception and this betrayal of the people which is so despicable and deserving of rebuke. Those who have foisted this treason upon the citizens of this nation should be branded with the shame of it for the rest of their lives, and they should be listed in history alongside those other traitors who have attempted subversion of this country and its way of life. That is the number one reason it should be repealed in total– and immediately.

This article completely misses the point, in my opinion. I don't care if Obamacare is made of gold, it should still be repealed. Why? Because it was pressed upon the people by an abusive president and an abusive, supporting legislature in full knowledge of the overwhelming opposition of the people. That legislature and that president should suffer the full rebuke and humiliation of seeing it TOTALLY repealed. (They should suffer more than that, even, but I'm trying to stay within the realm of possibility.)

Are you aware of the results of a poll announced earlier this week, that 83% of the physician participants indicated they will either retire early or leave the practice of Medicine altogether if Obamacare is fully implemented. .Before this poll was announced ,this country was already projected to be short 120,000 physicians by 2020. Adding another 30million patients will make medical practice so overwhelming, that the quality of care will be dramatically reduced.

The government has no business messing around in business. Politicians, especially those with law or academic backgrounds, have no clue as to how such things work. The consequence is the mess we find ourselves in right now.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.